Ohio Law

News and Announcements from the Supreme Court of Ohio and Other Governmental Entities Within the Buckeye State.

Monday, January 30, 2006

1/30/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements


2005-1900. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm.
Public Utilities Commission, No. 02-220-GA-GCR. On motion to dismiss.
Motion to dismiss granted. Cause dismissed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and
Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J. dissents.


2004-0495. Disciplinary Counsel v. King.
On application for reinstatement of James C. King, Attorney Registration
No. 0000774. Application granted and respondent reinstated to the
practice of law in Ohio.


2005-2378. Lawrence v. Edon.
Williams App. No. WM-05-001, 2005-Ohio-5883. This cause is pending before
the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On December
19, 2005, when this appeal was filed, a check in the amount of $40.00 was
submitted by counsel for appellant to satisfy the requirement of the docket fee
imposed by R.C. 2503.17 and S.Ct.Prac.R. XV(1). This court has been informed
by the Office of the Treasurer of the State of Ohio that the check was returned
because of insufficient funds. Whereas R.C. 2503.17 and S.Ct.Prac.R. XV(1)
require that the docket fee shall be paid before a notice of appeal is filed or a
case is docketed, IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause
is dismissed.


In re Report of the Commission on
Continuing Legal Education.
Matthew Paul Kammerer
This matter originated in this court on the filing of a report by the
Commission on Continuing Legal Education (“commission”) pursuant to Gov.Bar
R. X(6)(A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(d). The commission recommended the imposition of
sanctions against certain attorneys, including the above-named respondent, for
failure to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. X, Attorney Continuing Legal
Education, for the 2000-2001 reporting period.
On April 10, 2003, this court adopted the recommendation of the
commission, imposed a sanction fee upon the respondent, and suspended the
respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(3) and
(5)(A)(4). The court further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to
the practice of law in Ohio until respondent complies with the requirements for
reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. X(7), respondent complies with the Supreme
Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, respondent complies with this
and all other orders of the court, and this court orders respondent reinstated.
On January 11, 2006, the commission filed a recommendation pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. X(7)(B)(2) finding that the respondent has paid all fees assessed for
noncompliance, has made up all deficiencies and is now in full compliance with all
requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and recommending that the respondent be
reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio. The commission certified that respondent
had completed the credit hours of continuing legal education required during his
suspension by this court’s order of suspension. On January 24, 2006, respondent
satisfied all the requirements of this court’s order of suspension. Upon
consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the recommendation of the commission is
adopted and respondent, Matthew Paul Kammerer, is hereby reinstated to the
practice of law.



Post a Comment

<< Home